The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union 4.0

[Excerpt] From the southwestern periphery of the European Union (EU), Portugal is presiding over the EU Council in the first half of 2021 for the fourth time after 1992, 2000 and 2007. Despite being geographically peripheral and small, since its membership in 1986, the country has been an active supporter of deepening European integration. Understood as a way towards modernization after decades of authoritarian rule – both in the sense of reinforcing its democratic process after the Carnation revolution in 1974, but mostly as a way to access economic development – Lisbon has assumed a strong commitment vis-à-vis the EU. Since the mid-80s, even against the backdrop of crisis, and particularly during the 2011- 2015 bailout, Portuguese public opinion polls have constantly maintained a positive view on EU membership

“Security Union” and the digital sphere: unpacking securitization processes

Since 2016, the EU is boosting its agenda on security in a geopolitical context that comprises multiple challenges, namely the fight against terrorism, the migration pressure, relations with Russia, Brexit, and the redefinition of the Euro-Atlantic partnership. This article exposes drivers of the EU’s perspective on security, in particular, in the context of the “Security Union” framework and the emergence of the digital sphere as a defence matter.Desde 2016, a União Europeia está a reforçar sua agenda securitária num contexto geopolítico que inclui múltiplos desafios, nomeadamente a luta contra o terrorismo, a pressão migratória, as relações com a Rússia, o Brexit e a redefinição da parceira no eixo euroatlântico. Este artigo expõe as direções da perspetiva securitária da União Europeia, em particular no contexto do quadro da “União de Segurança” e da emergência da esfera digital enquanto matéria de defesa

Modelling eating behaviours : from childhood to adolescence

PhD ThesisThis thesis aimed to explore the relationships between predictors1 of eating behaviours in both childhood and adolescence and investigate their influence on food choice and food intake. For this, a global approach was used integrating individual, social and environmental predictors. The data included 210 participants aged 6-8 years old and 303 at the age of 12-13 of the Gateshead Millennium Study. Section II (Food intake in childhood) aimed to explore the relationships between predictors (e.g. trying and liking fruits and vegetables, parents’ food intake, etc.) and how they influence food intake in childhood (6-8 years old). Higher intake of healthy food was directly associated to liking fruits/vegetables and lower deprivation level, whereas higher intake of unhealthy was directly associated to lower level of liking fruits and lower BMI. Section III (Food choice and food intake in adolescence) aimed to explore the relationships between predictors (e.g. intention and temptation to eat healthy and unhealthy food, inhibitory control, etc.) and how they influence food choice and food intake in adolescence (12-13 years old). Temptation was the strongest predictor of the food choice, whereas inhibitory control was the only predictor of healthy intake. None of the predictors influenced unhealthy intake. Section IV (Longitudinal analysis) aimed to explore how food intake and its predictors in childhood influence eating behaviours and their predictors in adolescence. Tracking was weak in unhealthy intake and moderate in healthy intake. Several relationships between predictors from childhood influencing directly or indirectly eating behaviours in adolescence were found. This thesis gives some evidence of the complexity of eating behaviours in childhood and adolescence. Some limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed

Developing Social Skills in the Prison Context – Results from the Implementation of a Training Program with Prisoners

Non-formal education programs play an important role in the rehabilitation process of prisoners.  It provides the opportunity for prisoners to engage in useful activities in the prison context, improves their employment prospects after release, facilitates the process of their personal development and transformation and enhances their prospects of developing the motivation, autonomy and responsibility to gain control over their lives after their release. This study aims to present the results of a non-formal education program developed within the context of a curricular internship project, carried out at a Penitentiary Establishment, located in the North of Portugal. The project is part of the third year of a Bachelor Degree programme in Social Education at Portucalense University, which took place from october 2018 to june 2019. The project was organized in four main phases: diagnosis, planning, execution and evaluation. The methods for data collection used were document analysis, observation and questionnaires. The participants in the training program included ten prisoners who kindly volunteered to participate in the training program. The pedagogical strategies used in the training were: role-playing, brainstorming, and self-evaluation grids. The results revealed a positive view by participants and changes in their individual behaviour. Implications of the study and future work will be presented and discussed along the paper. Keywords: Social Education, Prison Education, Non-Formal Education, Development of Social Skills, Training Programme DOI: 10.7176/RHSS/11-11-06 Publication date:June 30th 2021

O princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare : a recusa do arguido em prestar autógrafos

Dissertação apresentada à Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra no âmbito do 2º Ciclo de Estudos em Direito conducente ao grau de Mestre, na área de especialização em Ciências Jurídico-Forense

Studying European margins in the illiberal turn: a spacio-normative approach

The aim of this special issue is to look at challenges to the EU and NATO and their relations and policies with both member states and neighboring countries, in particular, how recent developments contribute to the new dynamics of center–periphery relations in a wider Europe and the space of Euro-Atlantic institutions. We stem from a need to understand in what sense weaker countries today might be central to European governance, security and identity. What is a matter of utmost interest for the contributors to this special issue is the question of how countries that are (perceived as) non-central and thus weaker try to present and position themselves as belonging to Europe’s core, especially in security domains. Inspired by the concept of marginality developed by Noel Parker and a group of his colleagues – as part of post-modernist/post-structuralist scholarship in the sociology of international relations – we move the concept further on by expanding the empirical base for the scholarly expertise on centrality and marginality. In the context of the illiberal turn, we test two main hypotheses. First, we claim that the core/margins relationship is not unidirectional, and margins are increasingly capable of reshaping Europe in one way or another. Secondly, we argue that the phenomena of centrality and marginality can be conceptualized as both normative and spatial concepts

Estonia and Portugal in Europe: escaping peripherality, capitalizing on marginality

Estonia and Portugal are small states located at opposite geographical fringes of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This article analyses how their NATO and EU memberships matter in escaping the anathema of periphery. We argue that the two countries can be comparable with each other because they share an experience of post-authoritarian democratization, a liminal geographic location with the ensuing geopolitical and security challenges. Our analysis is premised upon two correlative concepts of small states and marginality, whose meanings vary from geopolitical reasoning to constructivist accounts that put the emphasis on the relative notion of size as a product of self-perception. However, both approaches share at least one common point: ‘by joining international organizations, small states increase their capacity to be influential’, which is a central point in Noel Parker’s conceptualization of the phenomenon of marginality. Arguably, small states can positively use their non-central location by aspiring to belong to political and security core(s) through policies of institutional inclusion, and by influencing and reshaping the core(s). Building on these arguments, we look at peripheral positions as negative and marginality as positive for dynamics/strategies of belonging

Kaliningrad and the Lithuanian “geopolitical code"

The paper analyses the evolving role of Kaliningrad in shaping Lithuania‟s security perceptions vis-à-vis Russia. Applying the framework of the “geopolitical code” designed by Flint, the authors question whether the exclave-enclave nexus in the Kaliningrad region ‒ after the European Union (EU) and the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) enlargements ‒ has been a relevant change in context that has affected Vilnius' security perception of Moscow in its “geopolitical code”. The cooperative posture of Vilnius initialled in 1991 ‒ and later reinforced through the EU programmes ‒ tended to be based on achieving the country and EU‟s own stability and development, in a regional perspective, with no strategy to spill over on global relations with Moscow. Vilnius' understanding of Russian policies in Georgia and, mainly Ukraine, represented a change in context from 2008 onwards that brought a focus on military dimensions concerning the Oblast. This change was convergent with the same tendency in NATO. Membership in the EU and NATO has reinforced Lithuanian perceptions of Kaliningrad as a potential ally or enemy. At the bottom line, Vilnius‟ key decisions towards militarization in detriment of cooperation result from a continued negative security perception of Russia. Although cooperative engagement exists, it has not been able to become a feature of the relation due to the rationale of this cooperation. Kaliningrad influenced the “geopolitical code” of Lithuania concerning Russia but it did not play a decisive role in changing Vilnius' calculations on how to engage with Moscow.(undefined